CHANDRATHIL NIJIL Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the seventh accused in C.P.18/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- II, Kannur. Crime 589/2006 was registered by Valappattanam Police for the offence under section 489B and 489C of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 6.12.2006 accused 1 to 6 travelled in a Taxi Car driven by the petitioner as its driver, carrying the counterfeit currency notes and the car was intercepted by the police at Kottampalli on getting information and on search counterfeit currency notes were seized from accused 1 to 6. Alleging that petitioner is also involved, final report is submitted as against the petitioner also which was taken cognizance. Petitioner also filed Crl.M.C.1187/2007 before this court at the investigation stage which was disposed by Annexure-3 order directing the police to investigate the case as expeditiously as possible and take a decision specifically on the question of complicity of the petitioner as it was contended by the petitioner that he was an innocent taxi driver whose service as a driver was made use of by the other accused and he had no common intention with the other accused. After completing the investigation as charge was laid as against the petitioner also, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate as C.P.18/2009, this petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner contending that there is no material whatsoever connecting the petitioner with the offence.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that for the reason that the taxi car of the petitioner was hired by accused 1 to 6 and accused 1 to 6 were in possession of counterfeit currency notes, it cannot be used as factors to show that petitioner was a party to the offences committed by accused 1 to 6 or that they were carrying the counterfeit currency notes with the consent or knowledge of the petitioner. It is argued that without materials to connect the petitioner with the possession of counterfeit currency notes when no counterfeit currency was seized from the possession of the petitioner, continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of the court and it is to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that the statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure do not show that there was any meeting by the petitioner with the other accused prior to the time of hiring the taxi and there was no conspiracy by accused 1 to 6 with the petitioner. It was vehemently argued that as there is no legal evidence to connect petitioner with the offence, continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner is to be quashed.